1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 25, 2008, C, his father, purchased and operated an automobile listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant automobile”) in the Plaintiff’s name. The Defendant, who aided C’s work, brought the instant automobile to locked on or around June 10, 2009, and thereafter, the instant automobile was disposed of as a substitute for the name-free winners.

B. The Defendant, after taking the instant vehicle, purchased the insurance on the instant vehicle by stealing the Plaintiff’s name after taking advantage of it, and operated the instant vehicle, but did not transfer the name of the instant vehicle to the deceased and wounded.

C. Therefore, pursuant to Article 12(1) of the Automobile Management Act, the Defendant is obligated to take over the transfer registration procedure for the instant automobile from the Plaintiff on or around June 10, 2009, which caused the transfer of ownership.

2. Determination:

(a) In a case where the transferee of the vehicle does not transfer the registered title while the transferee received the vehicle from the transferor, the transferor may seek against the transferee the implementation of the procedure for the acquisition of ownership transfer;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da11920 Decided April 24, 2008, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da24361 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.) B.

However, in this case, as to whether the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff around June 10, 2009, the Defendant borrowed KRW 3,000,000 from the Defendant’s seat around July 2010 and offered the instant motor vehicle as collateral for the purpose of raising funds from the Defendant’s seat around July 2010 while running the business together from around September 10, 209. In addition, the fact that the Defendant purchased the automobile insurance contract for the instant motor vehicle in the name of C or the Plaintiff and paid the premium thereafter is recognized by the Defendant. However, such recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant acquired the instant motor vehicle from the Plaintiff on or around June 10, 209.